[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[markhsmit]

Hey John,
Don't get me wrong, I like to read Wikipedia as well.  It is yet another source
for knowledge.  I feel that I need to cross-reference much of what I read, but
often it is a good starting point.  And, no, not all expertise belongs to the
encyclopedia, and often unsupported claims are made even in those
Halls of Knowledge.  What surprises me is how Wikipedia has become
a source for reference for the younger generation.  We don't even know
who wrote the articles.  Otherwise, it's all good.

I don't think we are in an anti-intellectual crisis, and I appreciate you
putting the Mao purging into context.  It would appear that anti-intellectualism
is just another word (like PC) which really has no meaning except as 
a tool to insult someone or to get one's way.

Cheers,
Willblake2

On Oct 18, 2009, at 11:25:02 AM, "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
From:   "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
Subject:    Re: [MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society
Date:   October 18, 2009 11:25:02 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
I like Wikipedia because not all expertise belongs to the encyclopedia
companies. The more you care about any given topic, the more you're likely
to know about it and wish to comment or inform your fellows.
Keeping the whole thing dynamic and open and evolving gives us the
opportunity to keep it sharp and accurate, if "we the people" want it so.

If you really think that there is anti-intellectualism going on
> in the US at this time, by all means, convince others, and rage
> against it. Unless of course you think it is good thing. Take sides
> create a movement, what's happening now with anti-intellectualism
> could result in another purging like in China after the second world war.
>


I got a different perspective on China last week. There's this guy I know,
known him a long time from the SDA church. We were working together
trimming the leaves off my brother's crop, a communal activity with lots of
time for gab, and I got to know stuff about him I never knew before. He
speaks fluent Mandarin. He used to teach Formosan villagers english and
he's an enthusiast of Mao's Red Book.

All stuff that I never knew. People can be so much more rich and
complicated than you observe on the surface.

Anyway, he made a point about Mao's massacre of intellectuals that it wasn't
"anti-intellectual" per se, rather it was following in the tradition of
thousands of years of Chinese history when one dynasty wipes out the
intellectual classes of the former so that it's own new intellectual
evolution takes over. Thus it wasn't society wiping out the intellectuals
so much as one intellectual pattern dominating society by wiping out
competing intellectual patterns.


How did we let our society get so anti-intellectual, where did we go
> wrong, where will it lead?


I think the anti-intellectualism you and Arlo see is born of a good
instinct, a collective, albeit ill-informed rejection of a value-free
metaphysical outlook which society blames upon intellectualism. But without
a more comprehensive metaphysical outlook to guide it, is in great danger of
making the mistakes of any reactionary, tossing babies all over the place in
its effort to get some clean bath water in the tub.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/